Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday November 15, 2013 @02:06PM
from the turn-their-evolvificating-up-to-11 dept.

ananyo writes "Research on Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, shows that the capacity to evolve can itself be the target of natural selection. B. burgdorferi can cause a chronic infection even if its animal host mounts a strong immune response — evading those defenses by tweaking the shape and expression of its main surface antigen, VIsE. A series of unexpressed genetic sequences organized into 'cassettes' recombine with the VIsE gene, changing the resulting protein such that it escapes detection by the host's immune system. The researchers studied the molecular evolution of the cassettes' genetic sequences in 12 strains of B. burgdorferi. They found that natural selection seemed to favor bacteria with more genetic variability within their cassettes, and hence a greater capacity to generate different versions of the antigen. 'Greater diversity among the cassettes in itself shouldn't be a selective advantage considering they aren't expressed and don't do anything else,' says lead author Dustin Brisson. 'But we did find evidence of selection, so the question is: what else could it be for besides evolvability?'"

My cassettes all migrated to CD's, and then from there to digital audio.

So extrapolating from that it seems the end game for all evolution is becoming beings of pure energy, DRM optional.

Not trying to do the "one up" thing here, but IMHO, the end game for evolution would be to become beings of pure information. Energy and matter are merely vehicles to store and transfer information content. We would probably get equally frustrated with the limitations of existing as energy beings as we currently do with the flaccid biological bags that we exist in.

And your DRM comment is indeed something to ponder on - the artificial copy protection mechanisms that we have slapped on top of our existence -

You're right, it is common sense. My initial reaction to this was the same as yours. That said, it's very useful to verify common sense scientifically, because it's amazing how often common sense proves to be wrong when formally tested. Take nothing on faith, not even (and perhaps especially) the obvious.

if evolution can/does affect every mechanism in a living organism, then the mechanism governing the ability to evolve must itself be included.

yes.

these researchers created a *false distinction* in their research question

They took what you call 'the mechanism governing the ability to evolve' and found a behavior in nature that they could drive a false dichotomy wedge into to create a *factor* where none exists. Here is where they invent the distinction out of *thin air* based on their personal opinion:

'Greater diversity among the cassettes in itself shouldn't be a selective advantage considering they aren't expressed and don't do anything else,' says lead author Dustin Brisson.

highlighted portion is **pure speculation** and forms the leverage for their whole experiment...if that ***opinion*** by the research is wrong the whole thing sinks...and it is just that one dude's opinion...which is not how a scientific research question is formed

bottom line: the process they describe, the bacteria being selected b/c some are more likely to survive is absolutely 100% main line accepted theory...their work does not in any way represent a new or different behavior in life

disclaimer: I am not a creation science supporter...i hate it...but I also hate equally the notion that **science can prove God does or does not exist**...looking at bacteria to somehow 'prove' evolution makes 'god' a delusion is itself a delusion.

And yes, this research isn't seeking to overturn current dogma. It's seeking to support it.

You are completely missing the basis and point of this research. It's not all that controversial or unusual. God may or may not still exist and TFA isn't anywhere near trying to bring up that question.

since most people who believe in a supernatural god make CLAIMS about the real world.

the definition of 'god' changes in indescribable ways depending on **which person you ask**...and of course **when you ask that person**

any 'CLAIMS' made by religious people about what a **supernatural** god does are not provable or disprovable by any **natural** means...if X religious nutjob says 'god makes it rain' and you prove them wrong by explaining the natural process of rainfall, the religious nutjob can

I agree with you, and try to explain it as two questions normally. "Is there a God" and "Is there a Theology". Numerous atheists mix the two arguments to claim that there is no God. Numerous Religious people mix the two arguments to claim that there is a God. Philosophers don't delve very deep into the Theology portion until they have a reasonable answer for having a God.

I almost laugh at times at how an atheist appears to be as much of an evangelist as the Jehovah's Witness you can't get to leave your

I realize that this is perhaps difficult, but belief in Theology requires the belief in a God first. The latter is a Philosophical question which can not be answered by science as the person mentioned. They never mentioned a Theology, and your bringing that up distorts the point.

If a person comes to a philosophical conclusion that there is a "God", "Creator" or what ever they wish to call it, then belief in a Theology will normally follow. You don't have to agree with their conclusion of having a God, bu

Maybe I'm overlooking the significance of this discovery but why is it surprising that a bacteria strain with a greater "genetic variability" would fall under natural selection? Wouldn't such a strain naturally survive others considering it allows the bacteria to rearrange antigens and thus the ability to evade detection and destruction by the host's immune system, even if those latent facilities aren't immediately apparent to an observer who doesn't know the full evolutionary history of the strain?

I'm also surprised about the surprise. After all, the evolutionary success concerns not the individual, but the whole set of descendants. A higher mutation rate (as long as it is low enough to not threaten the reproduction at all) means that the organism will be able to move more quickly adapt to the environment (and the immune system of the host is actively changing, therefore being able to adapt quickly would be a major advantage). On the other hand, organisms which are already well-adapted to an essentia

I think it's more that the evolutionary pressure is not currently present, so what you're seeing is a genetic holdover from past generations. Imagine you're witnessing the evolution of the giraffe, in years of drought the tallest survive as they can reach leaves higher up on trees than others. What do you see in rainy years when there's plenty food lower down, do you expect giraffes to keep getting taller? Why not, because even though it may seem pointless and irrational in this generation maybe in three ge

Glad I read your summary before TFA. Reading a claim that "Evolution can evolve" is like a claim of "movement can move", or "changes can change". I'm guessing that the article is nonsense like the summary, so I'm sure not racing to read it. I could be wrong, but your summation increases my reluctance.

Obama's Social Security Number begins 042, a which is only issued to Connecticut residents.This Social Security Number was issued in the late 1970's.Lyme Disease was first identified in Connecticut in.... you guess it... the late 1970's.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Obviously Obama created Lyme Disease in a lab in the 1970's, as part of his plan to manufacture fake evidence of evolution, to turn Americans away from God, to ensure he'd be able to usurp the Presidency of the United States after the new Millennium arrived.

Any and all inherited traits can evolve, including the capacity for evolution, itself.

Wouldn't that imply that there could possibly be creatures that don't have the capacity for evolution? That does not seem correct to me as even a clone can evolve through cosmic rays hitting the DNA directly. Still counts as evolution.

Actually I'm talking about a cosmic ray hitting the DNA in the egg or sperm cell of the individual. Or if it was a pure cloning species, then the clone formed from the mutated cells. Both of these would still be considered evolution. Mutation is a cause of evolution isn't it? Evolution just needs changes in the individuals and a selection pressure.

I just think it is crazy to say that evolution can evolve. That's like saying change can change. It's meaningless. The rate that the species can evolve might vary

There's a book called "Darwin's Unfinished Business" written by a guy named Simon G. Powell. He goes into depth on evolution, and how it's inherently intelligent, and self-improving. I'm not going to go all in here explaining more about it, read that book if you're interested. But he nails it, in my opinion. The fact that a seed has embedded into it the instructions to not only build another tree, but another fruit, and another seed - and not just a seed, but a seed that is able to continue on carrying the

It is easy to imagine a scenario where evolveablity is a long term selective disadvantage. Imagine a species with certain traits that allow it to survive a catastrophe that occurs infrequently. However these traits are dead weight during the good times (=most of the time). If the creature evolves to fast, it will lose all its catastrophe surviving traits during the good times and and get wiped out during a catastrophe. However if it evolves slowly these traits will survive the catastrophe and culling durin